Whites do have a role in stopping racism

[EGR one]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Actually to think a person is counted as 3/5ths human does mean they think of a person as less than human.

The Southern slave holding states wanted slaves to be counted fully. The Northern states did not want slaves counted at all, because they would not be allowed to vote. They settled on 3/5 and that only applied to determining how many representatives each state was entitled to.

 

[hunarcy]

Now we are on page 18 of irresponsible whiteness, This shows that whites here do not want constructive dialogue nor are they interested in taking steps to end the racism along themselves.

.Now, that is one of the funniest posts I've read. Adieu to you as well.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

Well if you knew that whites kill each other in white on white crime why did you ask for proof? Why were you stalling?

 

[there4eyeM]

Everyone has a 'role' in stopping 'racism'; it's the role of realizing we're all one.

 

[hunarcy]

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

Well if you that whites kill each other why did you ask for proof? Why were you stalling?

Because that is the right way to have a debate and discussion I also have no patience with closed minded people who refuse to discuss and just DEMAND people accept their beliefs with no question or critical thinking. It's not stalling, it's avoiding lazy shouting at each other, which bores me to death.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I prefer to keep my white privilege, thank you very much.

 

[IM2]

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

I am the OP and the OP was about a white person who was protesting the murder of a black woman who was stabbed to death by a white man. It was not abut blacks killing each other or whites doing it. But blacks killing each other always gets bought up when you maggots can't deal with the truth of white crime. And if you already knew the truth, then you knew I wasn't making a claim with no evidence.

 

[IM2]

No. I am only trying to make the point that race is not the issue. The issue is greed.

Blacks kidnapped and sold their brothers for money, and then whites came and took them as slaves to make money.

It's just that simple.

Sounds like you're trying to jump, hop and skip past the insidious bigotry and racism that America's known for.

Did those blacks who sold their brothers due to greed, according to your theory, did they consider them to be less than human, say, 3/5ths of a human too?

Its really not that simple.

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Actually to think a person is counted as 3/5ths human does mean they think of a person as less than human.

The Southern slave holding states wanted slaves to be counted fully. The Northern states did not want slaves counted at all, because they would not be allowed to vote. They settled on 3/5 and that only applied to determining how many representatives each state was entitled to.

So?

 

[hunarcy]

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

I am the OP and the OP was about a white person who was protesting the murder of a black woman who was stabbed to death by a white man. It was not abut blacks killing each other or whites doing it. But blacks killing each other always gets bought up when you maggots can't deal with the truth of white crime. And if you already knew the truth, then you knew I wasn't making a claim with no evidence.

LOL! You think being the OP means you don't have to prove your points? I think you're at best a lazy thinker and at worse, you're not interested in a real discussion. It's obvious you are just as closed minded as that old racist, Bull Connor. I am sad for you.

 

[IM2]

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

Well if you that whites kill each other why did you ask for proof? Why were you stalling?

Because that is the right way to have a debate and discussion I also have no patience with closed minded people who refuse to discuss and just DEMAND people accept their beliefs with no question or critical thinking. It's not stalling, it's avoiding lazy shouting at each other, which bores me to death.

The thing is if you knew it was a fact, then you know I am not just demanding someone to accept anything. Harley always wants blacks to show proof then when he gets shown it he wants more poof, then you show him more proof and then you get told hw you've never shown proof. So fuck that. I'm not playing racist white boy run around.

 

[MarcATL]

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

If you're such an honest broker as you claim, check out the podcast linked in my thread A Discussion About White Supremacy In The United States and comment accordingly.

 

[Votto]

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

I'm referring to the tactic of "taking the high ground" and it working.

It didn't', and doesn't, work for the Democrats.

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Besides saying "negro" (which was acceptable to Blacks at the time), what was racist about what she said? If Sanger was a racist why did she think the KKK were idiots?

Did you not read the bit about her wanting to "exterminate" negros?

And she loved to give talks to the KKK.

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."

Margaret Sanger, as the rest of the elitists of her day, were racist and eugenicists. In fact, Hitler studied eugenic Progressive thought in the US which sparked him to do what he did in Germany. Scientists like Darwin were convinced that blacks were inferior.

Unfortunately for Progressive Eugenics, the Holocaust gave them a bad name and they had to lay low for a while.

In “The Pivot of Civilization” and “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger describes the eugenic value of eliminating persons – minorities, the sick, and the disabled – through sterilization or segregation:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

As we all know, racism was rampant during the dawn of the Progressive era. Black could not even play with whites in baseball.

Are you really that blind?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Whites do have a role in stopping racism.

Anne Hathaway calls out white privilege in passionate post about 'unspeakable' murder of Nia Wilson
Erin Donnelly,Yahoo Lifestyle 7 hours ago

Anne Hathaway is using her platform for a powerful cause.

Outraged by the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old Nia Wilson by a white man, the Oscar-winning actress dedicated an Instagram post to honoring the young black woman. Wilson and her sister, who survived the attack, were stabbed at the BART MacArthur Station in Oakland, Calif., on July 22.

But Hathaway’s post was more than a passive tribute to Wilson — it was a call to arms and condemnation of those who hide behind their “white privilege” and fail to take action in the face of violence and racism.

Describing Wilson’s murder as “unspeakable,” the Ocean’s 8 star acknowledged her own privilege while calling for white people to step up.

Anne Hathaway paid tribute to the late Nia Wilson on social media. (Photo: Theo Wargo/FilmMagic)
“White people — including me, including you — must take into the marrow of our privileged bones the truth that ALL black people fear for their lives DAILY in America and have done so for GENERATIONS,” she wrote. “White people DO NOT have equivalence for this fear of violence. Given those givens, we must ask our (white) selves — how ‘decent’ are we really? Not in our intent, but in our actions? In our lack of action?”

She ended the message with the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, as well as #AntiRacist, #NoExcuse,
#SayHerName, and #EarnTheRightToSayHerName.

Hathaway shut off the comments for the post, but that hasn’t stopped fans from responding. Many are now praising her as an ally.

Of course, Hathaway’s passionate plea received a fair share of critics. One troll called her a “self-hating white bitch who constantly does the most to get the acceptance and approval of black people online… so f***ing pathetic and cringey.”

“Saying white people will never feel fear like black people is wrong,” another critic commented under one of Hathaway’s older posts. “There’s thousands of white girls in the world who are too scared to leave their homes after they’ve been abused, raped, and trafficked by men. There’s many white girls who have been murdered by men. Like I get it you’re privileged as hell and think every white woman is the same as you but that’s now how it works. Racism is disgusting and white supremacy needs to die but some of the stuff you said is just wrong.”

Hathaway’s not the only celebrity to speak out for Wilson. Amber Tamblyn also posted about her murder this week, though some accused her of shaming white women.

Anne Hathaway calls out white privilege in passionate post about 'unspeakable' murder of Nia Wilson

I am all for equality and harmony.

My white ass loves black folks. We get along great because we're the same. I would not want America to be without our black folks. That's why I really REALLY hate the "go back to Africa" responses. Makes me want to fight. There are A LOT of white folks like me, especially here in Texas. We love and cherish black folks who are our fellow Texans.

But, to be perfectly honest, Anne Hathaway's comments seem to be nothing more than the typical shameless virtue signaling by an actress who is desperately trying to stay relevant. She's using the plight of black folks to further her acting career. Fuck Anne Hathaway and her fake sympathy. What a shameless whore.

The best thing white folks can do is to teach their children to love all people, embrace all races, recognize that we are all Americans, and treat each other with kindness and friendship.

 

[Votto]

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Out of all the candidates, that you yourself claim was the best crop of Republicans ever to run in American history, you went and picked the most deceitful, lying, corrupt, belligerent, crass and immoral candidate to represent your party...and you voted for him. Moreover, once in Office, continued with more of the same, and not only do you excuse his worsening behavior and corruption...you actually LIKE it.

Is that an accurate or inaccurate description of Mr. Trump?

I never said that, you did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I did not vote for Trump in the primary.

Having said that, are you any worse under Trump? If so, how?

From what I hear, black unemployment is at record lows.

 

[hunarcy]

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

If you're such an honest broker as you claim, check out the podcast linked in my thread A Discussion About White Supremacy In The United States and comment accordingly.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

If you're such an honest broker as you claim, check out the podcast linked in my thread A Discussion About White Supremacy In The United States and comment accordingly.

Sorry, I don't have an hour for that right now. Perhaps in the future.

 

[IM2]

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.

I am the OP and the OP was about a white person who was protesting the murder of a black woman who was stabbed to death by a white man. It was not abut blacks killing each other or whites doing it. But blacks killing each other always gets bought up when you maggots can't deal with the truth of white crime. And if you already knew the truth, then you knew I wasn't making a claim with no evidence.

LOL! You think being the OP means you don't have to prove your points? I think you're at best a lazy thinker and at worse, you're not interested in a real discussion. It's obvious you are just as closed minded as that old racist, Bull Connor. I am sad for you.

It's obvious that you are another dumb ass white racist looking for a reason to call someone black a racist. I feel sorry for you that you suffer from such a severe case of psychosis. Harley always wants blacks to show proof then when he gets shown it he wants more poof, then you show him more proof and then you get told how you've never shown proof. So fuck that. I'm not playing racist white boy run around.. For you did not ask him tp prove anything when he made his comment on blacks killing each other.

 

[Votto]

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Democrats have fancied themselves as taking the high ground in politics forever, and look where it's gotten them.

It works huh?

Yah, right.

BTW, they still killed MLK.

And by "they" I mean whites.

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

Look, stop trying to play the party game. YOU are talking to black people. We say whites have been the problem. Both parties. Republicans haven't done shit and we were republicans first. Out of the150 years since we released from slavery, we were republican for almost 100 years and ended up leaving the party. So drop that political party bullshit because you republicans are not the ones.

The first Civil Rights legislation was passed under Eisenhower, a Republican

Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia

Following the Supreme Court ruling in Brown, which eventually led to the integration, also called desegregation, of public schools,[1] Southern whites began a campaign of "Massive Resistance." Violence against blacks rose; in Little Rock, Arkansas where US President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to order in federal troops to protect nine children integrating into a public school, the first time the US federal government ordered troops in the South since the Reconstruction era.[2] There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. The Eisenhower administration proposed legislation to protect blacks' right to vote.

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most blacks had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats. Civil rights organizations had collected evidence of discriminatory practices, such as the administration of literacy and comprehension tests and poll taxes. While the states had the right to establish rules for voter registration and elections, the federal government found an oversight role in ensuring that citizens could exercise the constitutional right to vote for federal officers: electors for president and vice president and members of the US Congress.

Passage[edit]
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as its southern members opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the mostly-Southern Democrats against civil rights for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[3]

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5][clarification needed] Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957.

 

[IM2]

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Out of all the candidates, that you yourself claim was the best crop of Republicans ever to run in American history, you went and picked the most deceitful, lying, corrupt, belligerent, crass and immoral candidate to represent your party...and you voted for him. Moreover, once in Office, continued with more of the same, and not only do you excuse his worsening behavior and corruption...you actually LIKE it.

Is that an accurate or inaccurate description of Mr. Trump?

I never said that, you did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I did not vote for Trump in the primary.

Having said that, are you any worse under Trump? If so, how?

From what I hear, black unemployment is at record lows.

And it's still double that of whites. Are we worse off under Trump, yes. All of us are.

Who did you vote for in the general?

 

[007]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

I never heard a Black person say they were going to murder another person because they were Black. You do realize whites are more likely to be murdered by other whites right?

Wrong, not statistically. When the numbers are broken down by averages, blacks murder blacks more than any other race, and blacks murder whites, and violently assault them, more than any other race. Blacks are just genetically predisposed to be more violent than most any other race on the planet. Probably because they were just drug out of the jungle a few hundred years ago. They're more primitive than most other races that have grown into intelligent, civilized societies. Blacks just haven't gotten the jungle out of them, and probably won't, because they're not as intelligent as most all the other races. That's why so many of them only have the intellect to pimp hoes, play hoops, carry a pig skin across a line or sell drugs and be a gang banger. Oh... can't forget rapping.

 

[IM2]

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Democrats have fancied themselves as taking the high ground in politics forever, and look where it's gotten them.

It works huh?

Yah, right.

BTW, they still killed MLK.

And by "they" I mean whites.

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

Look, stop trying to play the party game. YOU are talking to black people. We say whites have been the problem. Both parties. Republicans haven't done shit and we were republicans first. Out of the150 years since we released from slavery, we were republican for almost 100 years and ended up leaving the party. So drop that political party bullshit because you republicans are not the ones.

The first Civil Rights legislation was passed under Eisenhower, a Republican

Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia

Following the Supreme Court ruling in Brown, which eventually led to the integration, also called desegregation, of public schools,[1] Southern whites began a campaign of "Massive Resistance." Violence against blacks rose; in Little Rock, Arkansas where US President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to order in federal troops to protect nine children integrating into a public school, the first time the US federal government ordered troops in the South since the Reconstruction era.[2] There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. The Eisenhower administration proposed legislation to protect blacks' right to vote.

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most blacks had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats. Civil rights organizations had collected evidence of discriminatory practices, such as the administration of literacy and comprehension tests and poll taxes. While the states had the right to establish rules for voter registration and elections, the federal government found an oversight role in ensuring that citizens could exercise the constitutional right to vote for federal officers: electors for president and vice president and members of the US Congress.

Passage[edit]
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as its southern members opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the mostly-Southern Democrats against civil rights for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[3]

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5][clarification needed] Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957.

Nice try.

Although the Act's passage through seemed to indicate a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights, the legislation was limited. Alterations to the bill made the Act difficult to enforce; by 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%.

Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia

By 1964 you had a republican who was against civil rights- Goldwater. Todays republican party would not be for civil rights.